General Discussion (dev branch)

[nimrod123 11]

Tail rotor is something what make this rotation very fast. Especially to the left.

the key part of that is that it only happens at low speed. at higher speeds the interia of the airframe overcomes the torque of the rotor.

a coaxial can artifically increase torque to create a turning moment in a desired direction at a higher speed relative to a tail rotor

[pawelkpl 29]

The way cfgfunctions are called has changed twice last week, and at the end of last week, when the beta patch came out plus a dev update, the two versions were calling cfgfunctions in different ways!

Guys, please don't mess with this like this over and over again. It's breaking LOTS of stuff and usually, the first we know is when our missions stop working.

You want us to help by being in the beta and moreso, by being in the dev build, but we're spending more time fixing core stuff you've changed without telling us, rather than playing and creating content.

Case in point, the ifrit classname; it's now on it's third name, and that name is, let's be honest, crap. mrap_01 blah blah. It might be descriptive from a developers point of view because it has a serial number, but from a mission makers point of view, it's rubbish. WTF isn't called ifrit something something? Sit down with your guys, decide on what it should be and stick with it. Perhaps I can understand why the engine needs updates, but 2 classname changes on a vehicle? It's minor in terms of engine development, it's major in terms of mission development. I realise, of course the position I'm in right now. I'm pissing and whinnying about too many classname changes while campaigning for another, but the crux of it is, get it right first (or at most, second time) and then don't mess with it.

Further to the above, you need to tell us when you change stuff. For example, all of the ISO shipping containers. Some weeks ago, they mysteriously went scope private, only to reappear a week later, completely unchanged. Look, I know I'm not in your office, knowing about the minutiae of the design and code process, but was there really a compelling reason to do that? Because it broke missions.

Guys, I only have a couple of hours a day to do this and I'm learning every day how to work this stuff. Can you imagine how frustrating it is to learn some new stuff only to have it gone a few days later?

Look, I love this game. For me, an excellent day in front of Arma is writing some funky code and seeing the AI do my bidding like there's a human hand working them before dinner then coming back with a post dinner beer and pwning them with my mates. A bad day is finding a screen full of errors because you broke or changed something with no apparent reason or rational OR, you not telling us what you've done and how to fix or adapt to it.

I don't mind helping to fix bugs and shit - I knew that was in the remit when I signed up. I DO mind trying to fix your shit that's been needlessly broke.

+1 , well said !

[SaOk 112]

After the recent beta patches, empty and manned vehicles have started to break/explode when spawned. Empty cars I attach to parachute, usually land without wheel or two. Vehicles I spawn on outside of roads usually explode. Not sure what is causing it, but my mission is full of flaming vehicles now. :S

[dale0404 5]

@Tankbuster,

Dude, I know its shit but you really cant expect anything else, you have always known (and everyone else) that things will change (sometimes on a daily basis) until the proper game is released.

[Champy_UK 1]

TBH its more the fact we are shooting in the dark alot when there's the Changelog, which is to tell us exactly whats being changed?

No mention of what Tankbuster has said has appeared in the changelog, so on one hand yes its a beta but a definite +1 on what he said.

If you want us to test this properly, stop making major changes that break the game or if your going to change it, give us some idea on what your changing then we would stand a chance to correct things.

Not a rant and i know its a hard task, but it is on the reverse side for us to test this too and to report errors, how about we make it easy for eachother??? :)

[doln 10]

The classname changes make sense because its consistent.

IIRC the classnames for the faction equivalents are all identical except the letter at the start denoting the faction.

I'm paraphrasing but its something like B_MRAP_01 and O_MRAP_01. Each faction has their MRAP (Hunter and Ifrit). I'm really not explaining it well. But it's fine.

[Tyl3r99 41]

devs can we have our lamps back :P

[froggyluv 2136]

Did Sidechat just stop working? Also anyway to turn down the solar flare level intensity of Agaia Marina at night? Its like walking in an x-ray.

Edited July 14, 2013 by froggyluv

[Tankbuster 1746]

@Tankbuster,

Dude, I know its shit but you really cant expect anything else, you have always known (and everyone else) that things will change (sometimes on a daily basis) until the proper game is released.

It's about scale. BI are changing, and occasionally breaking stuff that should have been bolted down months ago. That aside, if they are going to make low level changes like we are seeing, we need to know about it. cfgfunctions is a classic example. changing that breaks every mission other than the simplest ones.

We are here to play test. In Arma, though play testing includes generating user content... missions, addons and scripts. We can't do this under these circumstances.

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:27 ----------

The classname changes make sense because its consistent.

IIRC the classnames for the faction equivalents are all identical except the letter at the start denoting the faction.

I'm paraphrasing but its something like B_MRAP_01 and O_MRAP_01. Each faction has their MRAP (Hunter and Ifrit). I'm really not explaining it well. But it's fine.

Fine. It's consistent. Why didn't they go consistent 6 weeks ago then?

In any case, the new naming scheme makes no sense. Why wouldn't a classname contain the ingame name of the vehicle? In the past, the vehicle classname has always been descriptive. These are not. What's next? B_rifle_01, b_rifle_02? Yes, they are consistent. But the are not sensible, useful descriptive or easy to use.

[thr0tt 12]

Beta = things will change in stable less frequent releases

Beta Dev = Lots will change potentially daily to get ready for stable beta releases

Final = stable branch for you to release missions.

If you don't want so many 'issues' either work on beta only or wait for final I'm afraid, why hold back improvements and fixes so missions still work ? BI need constructive feedback, name changes help organise and well help new mission designers when they come also, its not just done for fun of it.

[joschaap 1]

Since i swithed back to DEV Branch on friday, I keep getting undeclared variable errors in my missions while the variables have been declared for sure.. have this happenning to both private and global viriables

for example

private["_friendlyCount"];

if (_friendlyCount > 1) then: { 
//dosomething
};

now results in "undeclared variable in expression: _friendlyCount"

had something changed to the way we declare and use variables?

[moricky 211]

The way cfgfunctions are called has changed twice last week, and at the end of last week, when the beta patch came out plus a dev update, the two versions were calling cfgfunctions in different ways!

The delayed call of forced (now preInit) functions was a bug, that's why it was not announced in the change log. I summarized the details in the feedback tracker. I'm sorry for problems it caused.

[Larrow 2822]

The classname changes make sense because its consistent.

IIRC the classnames for the faction equivalents are all identical except the letter at the start denoting the faction.

I'm paraphrasing but its something like B_MRAP_01 and O_MRAP_01. Each faction has their MRAP (Hunter and Ifrit). I'm really not explaining it well. But it's fine.

Oh if it was like that it would make some sense as you could loop through a certain factions MRAP's, especially when more are added but unfortunately its not 01 is BLUFOR's , 02 is OPFOR :/

FACTION_MRAP_#_TYPE_F

O_MRAP_01_gmg_F - mmm doesnt exist.

In any case, the new naming scheme makes no sense. Why wouldn't a classname contain the ingame name of the vehicle? In the past, the vehicle classname has always been descriptive. These are not. What's next? B_rifle_01, b_rifle_02? Yes, they are consistent. But the are not sensible, useful descriptive or easy to use.

Have to agree here the new names are nondescript and because of the above make them unintuitive to use. Why not leave them with the name of the vehicle as per most other classes in the game.

[Champy_UK 1]

Beta = things will change in stable less frequent releases

Beta Dev = Lots will change potentially daily to get ready for stable beta releases

Final = stable branch for you to release missions.

If you don't want so many 'issues' either work on beta only or wait for final I'm afraid, why hold back improvements and fixes so missions still work ? BI need constructive feedback, name changes help organise and well help new mission designers when they come also, its not just done for fun of it.

All of the feedback is constructive, and unless im working on something else thats broken im on the stable beta... so go figure???

Thanks for the Answer and apology Moricky, and we do appreciate your hard work guys :)

[Sneakson 1]

Has anyone found the pirate treasure yet? Is there one?

[tpw 2315]

Since i swithed back to DEV Branch on friday, I keep getting undeclared variable errors in my missions while the variables have been declared for sure.. have this happenning to both private and global viriables

for example

private["_friendlyCount"];
if (_friendlyCount > 1) then: { 
//dosomething
};

now results in "undeclared variable in expression: _friendlyCount"

had something changed to the way we declare and use variables?

Yep, this has been a big problem for me too, and has broken several addons.

[.kju 3245]

You have justed defined the variable but not declared it ( = value assignment).

Your code is faulty and needs to be fixed.

[joschaap 1]

;2441356']You have justed defined the variable but not declared it ( = value assignment).

Your code is faulty and needs to be fixed.

ah i.c. adding a !isnill check should fix this :)

still its funny this didnt get noticed by the game untill latest devbranch updates :)

*edit* it also happens for declared vars. could it be bis_fnc_init related?

the mission works fine, evem the scripts throwing those errors are infact working as intended..

Edited July 15, 2013 by JoSchaap

[Tyl3r99 41]

I swear updates are getting bigger lately :)

[SaOk 112]

Is the car-alarm sound ("Sound_Alarm2") still coming back? I liked it. "Sound_Alarm" and "Sound_Alarm2" are currently the same camp alarm sound.

[bigpickle 0]

Beta = things will change in stable less frequent releases

Beta Dev = Lots will change potentially daily to get ready for stable beta releases

Final = stable branch for you to release missions.

If you don't want so many 'issues' either work on beta only or wait for final I'm afraid, why hold back improvements and fixes so missions still work ? BI need constructive feedback, name changes help organise and well help new mission designers when they come also, its not just done for fun of it.

My understanding having taken part in quite a few pre releases over the years is that:

Alpha means many changes of core code and the games framework, optimization of said code with additional small implementations of future code for content yet to come.

Beta being the tuning and content testing phase, normally the longest phase of all where 99% of rigorous testing takes place as the platform should be stable. (the last game i tested was in beta for just under a year, bis have a pretty short development period foir a game of this magnitude)

So I'm guessing that's why tankbuster and others said what they did as its a pretty rocky start to the beta when alpha phase work is still being carried out thus causing concern that it will keep happening. Makes perfect sense they voice concern.

I'm sure BIS wouldn't have done it unless they had to so lets hope they get going on the tuning and content development now :D

[DarkDruid 96]

Does anyone know how to access this

Added: Scripting commands for tree interface control

New commands added into BiWiki:

- tvAdd

- tvClear

- tvCount

- tvCurSel

- tvData

- tvDelete

- tvPicture

- tvSetCurSel

- tvSetData

- tvSetPicture

- tvSetValue

- tvSort

- tvSortByValue

- tvText

- tvValue

[Tankbuster 1746]

I'm sure BIS wouldn't have done it unless they had to so lets hope they get going on the tuning and content development now :D

Indeed. I don't for one minute suggest they weren't forced into making such decisions or that they do them willy nilly but I do suggest they should not allow themselves to get into the position where such forced changes have such a profound affect.

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

The delayed call of forced (now preInit) functions was a bug, that's why it was not announced in the change log. I summarized the details in the feedback tracker. I'm sorry for problems it caused.

Thank you for being so honest. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I properly love your work and I want it to be as good as it possibly can be for EVERYONE. Sometimes, that means I have to say "this is excellent!" and sometimes I have to say "actually, this is shit." :)

[Primarch 10]

Nice. This will help the community to be less of an asshole at times.

BattlEye anti-cheat integration (first deployment)

Removed sensitivity smoothing for aiming deadzone

[lordprimate 159]

.. after the update i was spinning in circles... if i looked left my avatar would turn his body right .. if i looked right my avatar would turn his body left.. once i disabled my trackIR things seemed normal. I checked everything with the TrackIR and its working as it should. There is definitely an issue with Arma, dealing with the imput from the trackIR and Not the TrackIR itself..